rgro;697625 Wrote: > Darrell---A respectful disagreement, in my book, should always be, > itself, respected. > > However, while I'm quite lazy and loathe to go back through all 185 > pages of postings, I cannot really recall that anyone here has made a > claim of any of these mods being science (to be sure, there have been > claims of differences heard--an opinion). There have been plenty of > claims that the mods are not. > > To wit: A number of folks claim that some of these mods, to their own > ears, make their music sound different/better. A number of other > people have said that until there is scientific proof (i.e. double > blind testing, etc.) that, as a result of these mods, their music > sounds better/different, these claims of improvements are simply a > matter of opinion and not fact. > > What several posters have been saying is why not just leave it at that? > Most people who feel that they do hear a positive change seem quite > content to leave it at that. > The crux of the matter is that there is no room for a subjective opinion as to the mechanism by which packets of data are transmitted from a server and received by a Squeezebox, and then converted to a (bit perfect) LPCM bitstream. (Let's leave digital to analogue conversion out of this, as some people use the SB DAC, some don't.) It is a simple matter of science-based engineering.
Therefore, those who maintain that there is benefit in intervening in this mechanism are, unavoidably, arguing in the arena of science and engineering. They may not *say* that they are making scientific claims, or even *know* they are making scientific claims, but that doesn't alter the *fact* that they are. rgro;697625 Wrote: > > Nobody here is forcing anyone to make these mods, attempting to portray > then in any other light other than what they are---basically "fiddling > around", nor attempting to charge exorbitant prices to convince you > that these mods are "the next big thing" in audio. So why not just > leave these poor sods to live happily in their unproven world of > Soundcheck's mods? > > My recollection is that people like SBGK, Soundcheck, Magiccarpetride, > GuidoF, etc. have simply come here and stated that they hear something > different. As I also recall, the overarching comments have been "try > them---if they don't make any difference, reverse them". Again, no > harm, no foul. I will grant that some of the claims have contained > some hyberbole, as have some of the counterclaims--both sides are > guilty. > Of course, it is not necessary to accept or even understand the scientific facts before one messes around with the configuration of either one's server or one's Squeezebox. Neither is is necessary to understand anything before publishing one's tinkerings and making claims as to their effect, on a public forum. But if one insists on advocating an unscientific (or even anti-scientific) approach to an intrinsically scientific question, in a public place, one must expect to be challenged, and specifically, be challenged to justify the claims in a scientific manner. It would do a great disservice to those browsers of the forum, now and in the future, if we failed to "call bullshit", as others have put it. And the "matter of opinion/taste" defence is not valid - subjectivism is meaningless when discussing things which are unavoidably objective and scientific. rgro;697625 Wrote: > > I personally find the server, TCP/IP stuff, and cable tweaks out of my > "comfort zone" and have no interest in trying them, so I won't. But I > certainly don't begrudge nor wish to attempt to muzzle those who > will--as long as what is being said is said civilly and with respect to > those who have a different point of view. > At least one of the protagonists of the anti-scientific approach, in this and other threads, has the habit of making crude and insulting remarks, and then deleting them, which distorts the picture for those looking back through the previous posts. rgro;697625 Wrote: > > And, to Darrell: While I agree with some of what you said about not > all opinions being equally valid, please tell me how our liking the > qualities of one sound over another is NOT opinion. Some aspects of > this are measurable, to be sure, but whether or not we LIKE, or > prefer, the sound quality of one speaker/amplifier/dac/soundcheck mod > over another is surely ONLY a matter of our personal opinion no matter > what the devices measure, empirically. And because those are opinions > of individual preference, like food, wine, composers, bands, etc., most > of those sorts of opinions are, indeed, valid. > Absolutely not! This is about hifi - high fidelity - not about personal preference. Within this, though, we must accept that loudspeakers are necessarily so compromised in their ability to "speak the truth" in terms of high fidelity, that matters of taste become valid and important. It is arguable, I think, whether matters of taste should impinge on the rest of the analogue parts of the chain. But when it comes to the digital components, and especially the computer networking parts, the only question any audiophile should ask is whether the original analogue waveform as captured in the recording is accurately recovered. Surely there can be no room for tuning, or matters of taste or opinion, here? rgro;697625 Wrote: > > The real battles have arisen here because the scientist-minded among > this community have demanded proof of something that nobody's > particularly interested in proving scientifically. > And, in all probability, something which is impossible to prove scientifically, but is nonetheless repeated, without qualification, over and over again. rgro;697625 Wrote: > > And, in fact, the clear message has been: "if you can't prove it, don't > say it". I DO find that strident and, as a general tenet of my personal > philosophy, object to those who take that approach. I am perfectly > capable of doing my own research, paying attention to those folks who's > opinions I respect, doing my own evaluations, and coming to my own > conclusions. I DON'T brook someone insulting me for going through that > process and coming up with an answer (or opinion) that is not the same > as theirs. > I see the "clear message" as more like "if you won't discuss scientifically a scientific claim, then why post it to a discussion forum?" and, "if you do post such claims on a discussion forum, please be prepared for others to discuss them, and also draw conclusions if you refuse to join the discussion in a constructive manner". rgro;697625 Wrote: > > The [non-science] folks in this small little corner of things, are > perfectly content to leave these mods unproven. There's no intent that > I've seen to proselytize this out to the general world of audio nor to > cast aspersions on those who elect not to try them. > Yes, they leave the mods unproven, but surely the very act of publication, on forums and blogs, is an attempt at proselytization? And, unfortunately, some have been all too willing to cast aspersions (see my point about deleted posts, above). rgro;697625 Wrote: > > Again, I would say: if you don't like the content of this thread, > ignore it. I have no problem whatsoever with folks posting contrary > opinion or reminding others of what the objective perspective is. > Agreed, on reflection, I was wrong to call for the thread to be closed. rgro;697625 Wrote: > > But, at the least, respect the wishes of the rest who wish to dwell > here, are well aware that these mods are not objectively proven to do > anything at all, and yet who would, nonetheless, like to continue to > have these discussions and play around with buffers, priorities, and > the like. > If by "respect the wishes", you mean don't challenge, then I can't agree. My view is that flailing around in a mystical, subjective quagmire in not a recipe for happiness or fulfilment in any area of life, and that concentrating on making an emotional connection with the music is much better that investing emotional energy in the means of reproduction. And on a public forum, I reserve the right to say so. -- darrell ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrell's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13460 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
